Understanding HC's and EA's

[Renee Healion]

Q: " CB4, like why would an appraiser want to call for an inspection by a competent tradesperson if the appraiser doesn't think it is needed"

It it not saying that the appraiser does not think it is needed. it is saying the OPINION of VALUE is made assuming it does not need repair. Remember you are talking about your opinion of value in Reconciliation and you are disclosing what may affect that opinion. It is about context of your opinion.

(Reconciliation is important and you should not associate importance with the amount of space the form creators assigned to report it.)

So, for the practical question next, who uses the qualified (other) professional's findings to "clear CB4": when we got the 4 boxes we (me, not just me) thought it meant the documentation could be supplied to the UW directly. Then it turned out that UWs did not like this apparent expansion of perceived liability and so they kept ordering appraiser inspections.

 

[George Hatch]

The form could use some clean-up. There are EAs, (actual) HCs, and then what the "subject to" is usually used for: "Additional Recommendations"

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

USPAP has lots of definitions and basic rules for the use of EA's and HC's but does not contain a lot of examples and scenarios. The few samples they do present are not particularly relevant to the everyday house appraiser. I think it is the practical application and lender intended uses that get many appraisers so confused about this issue.

I sort of fixed it for myself by reading all the time. But I don't have a life, so...

----

last question for a while, I promise....

Regarding an FHA assignment conditioned with an EA, which "clears" various physical problems/incongruities in order to provide a valuation based upon the premise that the issues don't exist (or exist but have been satisfactorily resolved) . . . . . . . does the EA also affect the HUD Minimum Property Requirement standard and corresponding compliance statement? If so, the subject of every assignment, other than those with uncurable issues, does indeed meet or exceed, i.e.,

"The subject property meets or exceeds Minimum Property Requirements expressed in HUD Hanbook with consideration for the Extraordinary Assumption that is addressed in the Reconciliation addendum"

--or--

"The subject property FAILS TO MEET Minimum Property Requirements expressed in HUD Handbook because of various issues that are addressed in the Reconciliation addendum."

--or--

Neither of the above????